Standing Committee C

[Mr. Mike Hancock in the Chair]

National Heritage Bill [Lords] - Clause 1 - New Functions Relating to Underwater Archaeology

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mike Hancock: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on whipping everyone present so effectively.

Sydney Chapman: This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship in a Committee, Mr. Hancock. I am looking forward to it.
 It might be helpful if I were to introduce the Bill generally. It is divided into two halves. I hope that the Committee agrees that clause 1 should be read with clauses 2, 3 and 6. I shall try to explain the import of those clauses, but I shall not deal with them in detail unless any hon. Member wishes me to do so in a clause stand part debate. 
 The Bill was introduced in the other place by Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, and I think that it has all-party support. It had its Second Reading in the other place on 31 October, and was dealt with in Committee on 14 November. Its all-party support was instanced on two occasions. First, it carries out what was planned in the 1996 Green Paper ''Protecting our Heritage''. Secondly, its provisions were more or less part of the Culture and Recreation Bill that was introduced in the last Session of the previous Parliament. However, that Bill did not proceed because the Government decided to call a general election 11 months before they needed to, despite their massive majority. This Bill is simple in the sense that it has only eight clauses. Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6 are about transferring responsibility for underwater archaeology from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to English Heritage, which currently deals only with land sites. 
 All the relevant organisations and institutions support the measure. They include not only English Heritage but the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites, the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee, and even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. In addition, many organisations and professional and amateur practitioners in marine archaeology and associated occupations have asked for the Bill for many years, and it was universally accepted in the consultation paper that resulted from the 1996 Green Paper. If the measure is enacted, underwater archaeology will at last be dealt with by the most appropriate heritage organisation. 
 The seas around Britain contain an immense wealth of architectural sites and remains. It is estimated that the density of wrecks—I am not referring to my 
 political career—around our shores is probably the highest in the world. Our seas contain extensive submerged landscapes, mainly prehistoric, and remains from the history of the British people and their exploitation of, and dependence on, the sea. As a major naval, mercantile and industrial power, and as an island experiencing successive waves of settlement, our history is inextricably linked to our surrounding seas. 
 Despite that rich maritime history, and in contrast to the situation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, English Heritage—the lead agency for managing the physical remains of the historic environment in England—does not yet have responsibility for marine archaeology. The benefits of clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6 are that English Heritage's expertise in site management and preservation will be able to be applied to the waters around England. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will support clause 1.

Anne McIntosh: I, too, welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Hancock. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and, as ever, it is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place.
 On behalf of all of my hon. Friends, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet on securing this slot for this important Bill. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in recognising that my hon. Friend is a national treasure in his own right, so it is appropriate that we have gathered here today to consider the Bill. 
 I feel like an above-water wreck this morning, as we consider this Bill about underwater wrecks, but it gives me pleasure to confirm our support for it. It has all-party support, and I am sure that it was an oversight that the previous Government did not find parliamentary time for it. I congratulate my noble Friend Baroness Anelay on introducing it and steering it so eloquently and successfully through the other place. 
 The Bill recognises the fact that we are an island nation, and a naval and mercantile power, and it is appropriate that the National Heritage Act 1983 should be amended in this way. That Act prevents English Heritage from offering its services outside the United Kingdom, but this transfer of authority from the Department to English Heritage will free English Heritage to provide that role, and all of us would like to enable English Heritage to generate additional income in that way. 
 I support clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6, and the transfer of authority for nautical archaeology from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to English Heritage. As we know, the Department has many wide-ranging responsibilities, and I am sure that it would welcome this opportunity to have one less. 
 As my hon. Friend said, several organisations have lent their support, and I wish to refer to one of them—the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee. Its chairman is Mr. Robert Yorke, which is spelt with an ''e'', so I am unsure whether previous generation of his family came from the Vale of York, or nearby. That 
 Committee enthusiastically supports the Bill. A letter on the matter from Mr. Yorke states: 
''The National Heritage Bill provides a very necessary and long overdue opportunity to put maritime archaeology on the same basis as land archaeology. Around our coasts we have some of the richest maritime heritage in the world including historic wrecks, harbour installations and submerged ancient land surfaces.
The transfer of responsibility for underwater archaeology from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to English Heritage will provide the opportunity to understand, manage and protect this underwater heritage for future generations.''
 The letter continues: 
''Underwater archaeology is already popular in the media and future dissemination of information will be further improved as a result of the transfer.''
 We agree with that. The letter goes on to state: 
''Since the launch of 'Heritage at Sea' in 1989, the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee has been working to bring about this transfer'',
 and it hopes that that can be achieved today. 
 My noble Friend Baroness Anelay referred, in particular, to the Stirling castle, a sealed 18th century warship, one of four that sunk on the Goodwin sands in the great storms of 1703, which was recently partly exposed. It would be a great tribute to English Heritage if the Government structure were to allow heritage agencies to become fully engaged with such wrecks, and the Bill would enable English Heritage to act in an official capacity with regard to the Stirling castle. 
 I served as a lieutenant commander in the Royal Navy under the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and I wish to express my gratitude for the fact that we were not wrecked at sea, and so did not have cause to become among the first beneficiaries of the Bill. Unfortunately, we did not feature in any James Bond films so I cannot claim to be a Bond girl. I support enthusiastically clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6.

Andrew George: I add my congratulations to those to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet on having secured the necessary parliamentary time to debate the Bill. It is important and we hope to see it through. The coast of Cornwall, which I know better than the Isles of Scilly, probably has more maritime wrecks than many other parts of the country.

Mike Hancock: What did you say, Mr. George?

Andrew George: Perhaps not as many as Portsmouth.
 Many wrecks have been illegally plundered in the past and fears about their future security clearly underlie the need to legislate for their protection, so the Bill is welcome. 
 I have recently taken up the case of the discovery of the wreck of the HMS Colossus, a 74-gun, third rate ship of the line that was built in 1787. It was wrecked off Samson off the Isles of Scilly on 10 December 1798. Securing the necessary permits to dive and investigate and, ultimately, to survey and recover properly the artefacts from that site have been an instruction to me. Leaving aside the rightness or wrongness of whether artefacts should be recovered from it, it was clear that, apart from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Ministry of Defence—which owns the 
 vessel—the Receiver of Wreck and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are involved. They all have an interest in whether such a project should proceed as it incurs great expense to those concerned, and involves time and complexity. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the Bill. I hope that the Government will also support it.

Nick Palmer: I have a couple of requests for information. First, although I think that it depends on the context, what is the territorial water boundary under the Bill? Is it three miles, 12 miles or 200 miles? Secondly, most members of the Committee will have received correspondence on diving and wrecks. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) referred briefly to whether it is appropriate for divers to explore wrecks that contain dead bodies and items of national interest. To what extent will the Bill deal with that issue? By supporting it, are we delegating to English Heritage decisions that are difficult to resolve in a balanced way?

Tim Loughton: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet on bringing back the Bill, and my noble Friend Baroness Anelay on having set it on its way in the other place. As treasurer of the newly formed all-party archaeology group that is now already the third largest group in Parliament, it is a refreshing change to be able to speak on such legislation, given that I trained as an archaeologist and archaeology is my hobby.

Shona McIsaac: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is probably the first major discussion on archaeology in the House for about 10 years? Clearly, the Bill will have an important function, as will the newly formed all-party group of which I am a member.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We are starting a trend by ensuring that archaeological considerations are taken more seriously and have a higher profile in the House. We have many discussions about things that happen underground, such as pollution and how we tax aggregates—let alone the tube—and we discuss factors about the seashore such as the movement of shingle and pollution controls, but there is little legislation that addresses features underground with archaeological significance. They require protection, and many have been lost while insufficient has been done to save them.
 There is an awful lot of legislation that addresses worries about the environment and environmental protection above ground, but little that addresses archaeology. The Bill will be one of the few pieces of legislation that promotes and protects archaeological sites that are important to the heritage of the country. Let us not forget that archaeology makes a major contribution to Britain's tourist industry, whether the sites are above water, below land or above land. The underwater archaeological aspect of the Bill is probably the last great unexplored frontier of archaeological investigation throughout the world. 
 Archaeologists and ancient historians are reassessing the timings of the ice age and the extent 
 of civilisation before the middle eastern civilisations with which we are all too familiar, which may push back the dating of our forefathers by thousands of years. That will be achieved by underwater archaeological investigation of lands that may have been inhabited thousands of years before the middle eastern civilisations. Through that, we will find out more about our past. 
 Our nation has always been a maritime nation that was linked to the continent. There may be archaeological evidence of earlier civilisation below our waters, and it is vital that we have a body that is responsible for archaeology under the water and as serious and committed to the preservation of our heritage as English Heritage. Therefore, I warmly welcome the Bill. 
 Labour Members mentioned wrecks. I represent a coastal constituency in Sussex, and I was surprised to be approached by local divers with maps that showed some of the wrecks off our coast. There are an enormous number of wrecks, and many are used as training dive sites for divers. That is a growing business that involves more people than I anticipated. Most divers are legitimate and responsible, but I fear that a lot of people do not treat our wrecks, especially war graves, with the respect that they should. I hope that the Bill will give English Heritage the power to ensure that divers who wish to explore wrecks for legitimate leisure may do so, and that such divers will respect what English Heritage tells them they can and cannot do. People who refuse to respect that should have the full weight of the law brought down on them. I hope that that will solve some problems that are associated with the grey area of diving on wrecks. 
 It is odd that underwater archaeology has such a low profile in a nation with such maritime heritage. If the man in the street were asked to give two examples of underwater archaeology, he would, if hard pressed, mention the Mary Rose and, perhaps, the Armada. However, there are hundreds of thousands of other examples of underwater archaeology that we have begun to explore, and many more examples still lie there, which we have not come near exploring. There may be not only the high profile wrecks of warships, but prehistoric craft. Depending on our interpretation of the ice age, there may be various henge sites and walkways well out in the sea between England and the continent. There is a lot of archaeology that is still to be investigated, and we need the rigorous guardianship that English Heritage will bring to archaeology under the sea. Although for many of us the Bill does not go far enough in giving protection to archaeological sites, it is a good start. I hope that it is part of a process in which Parliament and the constituents whom we represent will take more seriously the archaeology, history and heritage that is so important. Such subjects should have a higher profile and be treated on a par with the other environmental concerns that we have rightly spent much of our time and resources considering. I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill so efficiently, and I wish it well. 
 The Chairman: Thank you for that helpful and thoughtful contribution.

Shona McIsaac: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hancock, and praise the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet for getting the Bill to Committee. He would probably agree that we were not expecting to discuss the Bill on Second Reading, because it was the fourth item on the agenda that day, but, with great delight, we had a short but interesting debate on Second Reading.
 On the Sunday following our discussion of the Bill on Second Reading, the excellent television programme ''Time Team'' devoted a whole programme to underwater archaeology. It featured a wreck off the Scottish coast and demonstrated the wealth of heritage lying beneath our waters. I feel a wreck this morning because I am addicted to the repeats of ''Time Team'' that are shown on the Discovery channel at 12.30 am. The programme in the early hours of this morning was about the Roman crossing of the Thames—obviously now submerged—from St. Thomas' hospital to Thorney island, on which the House was built. Although that was about a river, it was an interesting example of what lies beneath the waters. 
 Like other hon. Members, I represent a coastal constituency. Many of my constituents fish out of the great port of Grimsby. During both wars, the men of Grimsby and Cleethorpes contributed massively to the war effort and many trawler men lost their lives at sea. There were also many air force bases in Lincolnshire and aircraft wrecks under the water. We have mentioned ships, but should not forget aircraft wrecks. 
 In representing a coastal community, I know that a lot of emotion surrounds the disturbing of what people regard as graves in the fishing and military vessels lost at sea. Constituents have raised concerns about people removing artefacts from the wrecks, which my constituents consider to be the desecration of graves. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the laws currently in place, such as the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994 and the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, give sufficient protection to the graves lying under our waters? I spoke about that matter on Second Reading. 
 I give the Bill my wholehearted support. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has already articulated that the boundaries of our knowledge about archaeology are being challenged—on the end of the ice age and sea level changes for example. We are beginning to realise that there is far more underwater archaeology than we suspected. There are likely to be prehistoric towns and urban settlements around the shores of the United Kingdom. 
 Cities have been found off the coast of India, which suggests that the urbanisation of society may have occurred much earlier than previously thought, although that is a contentious point with some archaeologists. There is a lot of archaeology to be discovered and investigated that will contribute to our knowledge of the history of not just these islands but 
 mankind itself. Increasing the protection of that archaeology is an absolute necessity. I wish the Bill well and give it my wholehearted support.

Kim Howells: I, too, would like to say what a great pleasure it is to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Hancock. I have not had that pleasure before. I have always held the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet in high regard, and congratulate him on this excellent Bill, which has the Government's full support. Unlike many hon. Members, I cannot quote examples of local wrecks; I have a land-locked constituency. There are many ex-rugby players who would probably describe themselves as wrecks, but I do not think that we would like to explore them.
 The Bill clearly has all-party support, so I shall refer briefly to some of the points raised. The mileage is 12 miles. It is important to remember that maritime military graves and military wrecks from 20th century conflicts remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. I am aware of the concerns of naval veterans' associations and relatives of those lost at sea about the activities taking place on some military wrecks. I am also aware that some maritime archaeologists suggest that all maritime heritage should be administered by the same body. I know that the hon. Gentleman has considered that. 
 The MOD undertook a review of the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 and published a report on it last November. It is preparing a statutory instrument that will designate 16 vessels in UK waters and 7 in international waters that meet its criteria. I know from conversations that there have been worries about funding. That is an issue; English Heritage has a huge list of properties that have to be considered. The other day I learned that it grants about £100 million a year in aid, but about £400 million is probably needed for the maintenance of buildings that could do with a great deal of protection. English Heritage is taking on a very important new function, as hon. Members have informed us. 
 It may be useful to mention that English Heritage's grant in aid will be increased by £5 million in 2002–03 and by £11 million in 2003–04. Those levels of grant in aid reflect the fact that we intend to transfer responsibility for underwater archaeology to English Heritage for that period. English Heritage has been advised that the Government expect it to devote at least £200,000 per annum from that increase to underwater archaeology. The £340,000 per annum that is currently the DCMS baseline for underwater archaeology will also be transferred to English Heritage. 
 Underwater archaeology projects will be able to compete on equal terms with land archaeological projects for English Heritage grants, which are an important source of funding. When we have transferred the responsibilities, it will be up to English Heritage management to decide on the allocation of its budget. We have heard some strong arguments in this short debate in favour of paying much more attention to underwater archaeology than we have done until now. 
 Tim Loughton: I am encouraged by some of the figures that the Minister gives. I hope that future increases will be sufficient for the great deal of exploration that is needed. He is aware of the portable antiquities scheme, an announcement on which I gather his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is due to make tomorrow. We hope that it will be favourable, although some of us fear that it may not be. Is there any reason why an equivalent scheme could not be used to cover treasure found by private divers on underwater archaeological sites, now that such sites are to fall under English Heritage's responsibility?

Kim Howells: I shall ask my right hon. Friend about that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not want to pre-empt anything that she will say tomorrow, any more than I would want her to pre-empt something that I was about to say.
 I reiterate my support and that of the Government for the Bill and wish the hon. Member for Chipping Norton a fair wind in putting it to bed.

Sydney Chapman: Many of my colleagues are under the misapprehension that my seat of Chipping Barnet nestles easily in the Cotswolds.

Mike Hancock: It probably would.

Sydney Chapman: However, it sits rather uncomfortably at the top of London.
 I am delighted that the Minister is at the DCMS and thank him for his kind and generous comments about me and the Bill. I hope that he has answered the questions asked, especially by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). 
 The more I listen to colleagues on both sides of the House, the more I realise that I am rather an imposter, not only because Chipping Barnet is land-locked, like Pontypridd, but because there is obviously a lot of detailed and expert knowledge about archaeological matters. Many years ago, when I chose my profession, I started an alphabetical list, but I could not spell archaeology, so I moved to the next one down and became an architect.

Mike Hancock: As someone who has dived on the Mary Rose and worked at Danebury, I found it an interesting and helpful debate.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - New trading functions of the Commission

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the new trading functions proposed for English Heritage. Clause 4 enables English Heritage to produce souvenirs relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings that are situated in England and to sell
 souvenirs. It will not be able to act in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland in such matters.
 With your indulgence, Mr. Hancock, I shall also mention that it may help the Committee if I say that clause 5 amends the anomaly whereby English Heritage may offer its services and expertise in England but not outside the United Kingdom. The National Heritage Act 1983 restricts English Heritage's activities almost exclusively to ancient monuments and historic buildings in England. However, I am glad to say that there is a demand for English Heritage's expertise, goods and services outside the United Kingdom. Therefore the intention is to give English Heritage the powers needed to meet that demand. As English Heritage will be able to charge for those services, the Bill will enable it to generate additional income, which I am sure Committee members will welcome.

Tim Loughton: I support giving new commercial powers to English Heritage. Presumably, if it is successful in selling its services to archaeological sites and projects overseas, it will be free to reinvest those moneys in order to explore more sites underwater or on land within the confines of England and its coast.
 Will the Minister give an undertaking that English Heritage will not be penalised by its commercial success in selling its services overseas only to see a proportionate cut in its grant from his Department that would not allow it to expand its activities in England? That is an important consideration. There is a great deal of skill and expertise in English Heritage. The all-party archaeological group recently met various representatives of English Heritage at the British museum, who fully support the Bill. I would not like the Government to use the Bill as an excuse to reduce funding to English Heritage because it can now be seen to be standing on its own two feet commercially. That could lead it to spend more time, resources and skills exploiting commercial opportunities overseas, leaving it less time to investigate those sites around the coast of England. That is an important consideration and I should welcome an assurance from the Minister.

Anne McIntosh: Like Pontypridd and Chipping Barnet, the Vale of York is land-locked.

Kim Howells: Most of the time.

Anne McIntosh: Yes, when my constituency, including the railway line, is not submerged under water for other reasons. Viking blood flows in my veins, so that explains my interest in such matters.
 I want to draw attention to the role of divers. Unlike you, Mr. Hancock, I have usually observed wrecks from a snorkelling rather than a diving position. Perhaps my sub-aqua activities could be expanded. I gather that the Deputy Prime Minister learned to dive during his many years in Opposition and I sincerely hope that the Conservative party does not have such a long stretch in Opposition, but it would be an opportunity to undertake such an activity as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will understand. 
 Obviously, divers will be essential to the exploration and monitoring of the wrecks and sites, and the Bill is supported by associations that represent divers and sub-aqua interests. Those associations are committed to conservation and the aims of marine and maritime archaeology. I, too, have a question for the Minister. We like to work Ministers hard, so that they earn their ministerial salary. As I have said, we hope that the hon. Gentleman is in his position for as long as possible, but we are concerned that the Easter reshuffle may take him from us. Perhaps he is destined for higher places. [Interruption.] I may make that comment, but I am sure that he would not like to be drawn on it. I wish him well. 
 Will the divers be employed directly by English Heritage or will they be contracted out? Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I am greatly encouraged by the sizeable amounts of money that the Minister has announced for the next two or three years. Has the hon. Gentleman assessed what income will be generated each year? Will he comment on the extent to which English Heritage expertise in site management and preservation will be used in its own right, because we shall soon be discussing clause 7, which refers to the delegation of functions by English Heritage. I fervently hope, for the reasons that have been given, that we will use English Heritage's expertise, which is why we are supporting the Bill. Does English Heritage have a particular archaeology diving contractor in mind or will it use a series of contractors?

Nick Palmer: I have another tiny, forensic nit-pick to make. I am not sufficiently familiar with the original National Heritage Act, but the proposed new subsection (3A) in clause 5 opens the possibility for English Heritage to offer its services for
''foreign ancient monuments or foreign historic buildings''.
 Given that the objective of such provisions is to give English Heritage a pretty free hand in using its expertise overseas for commercial benefit, are we satisfied that the definition of ancient monuments and historic buildings is sufficiently widely drawn? For example, will English Heritage be allowed to assist in the preservation of a 20th century monument?

Kim Howells: The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised an important point. English Heritage is permitted to retain receipts from the provision of services, admissions to buildings and the sale of souvenirs, and it can use that money as it wishes. Therefore, it would be able to retain receipts from, for example, overseas trading activities, and to retain any profits.
 Those receipts must be included in annual estimates, and in the statements supporting monthly grant in aid claims—as is the case with regard to other receipts. Consequently, such activities would not be a cost to the taxpayer, and they might provide English Heritage with additional income that could benefit its other activities. Therefore, the short answer to the question is that it will be able to use that income. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about divers. I understand that 
 divers would be sub-contracted, as is the case at present. 
 It is difficult to estimate how many private sector companies would be able to benefit from English Heritage's lead—that point was hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe—and to estimate the volume of extra business that they and English Heritage could expect. That would depend on their activities—and on the weather, in any given season. 
 Companies would be drawn from a wide field, including the construction sector, conservationists, museum services and related suppliers—and tourism-related consultancies, which I am particularly interested in. I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that it would be unwieldy, and disproportionate in terms of cost, to conduct any assessment or survey of such a broad spectrum of companies. 
 The volume of trade is also difficult to judge, in the current vacuum. Only when trading gets under way will a reasonable indication emerge of its potential size. However, it is known—through the creative industries export promotion advisory group and consultation exercises—that companies are strongly in favour of the move. That is another reason for supporting the clause and the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Assistance in relation to protected wrecks

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew George: I simply want to emphasise the importance of the clause with regard to the defraying of costs, and in particular the costs of those who are involved in surveying sites and, where it is appropriate and agreed, in recovering articles from those sites, after a proper survey and the proper licences have been granted.
 With regard to that, I wish to offer an example from the part of the country that I represent, because I assume that, for the purposes of the Bill, the expression ''adjacent to England'' includes Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. There are attempts to recover artefacts from maritime sites on the Isles of Scilly, and to display them at Valhalla, the national maritime museum's ships' figurehead museum on Tresco, in the Isles of Scilly. A company on Bryher is attempting to add to that collection at present. However, with regard to recovering and displaying such artefacts, the additional costs of some of the regulations and conditions—welcome and understandable though they are—are considerable, and, where it is appropriate, the commission should assist in defraying them. I am sure that that would help with regard to the recovery of such artefacts, and it would also help to ensure that the public are able to see them. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 7New functions to support other heritage organisations

New functions to support other heritage organisations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: I should explain that clause 7 introduces new measures whereby English Heritage may delegate its functions to another person if it has the finance to do work that is within its remit, but it does not have the personnel or time to do the work itself. That is a practical solution to a problem that may arise.
 On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), who gives her apologies for not being present because of a clash with another Committee, asked about the rights of intellectual property. I begin to struggle when I hear the phrase intellectual property. However, I have made enquiries and if English Heritage handed work to an external person or organisation, a contract would be negotiated. Part of the negotiation would include matters relating to intellectual property. 
 I am extremely grateful that the Minister always speaks after me because his immense expertise can put right my limited capabilities.

Kim Howells: I could bore for Britain on intellectual property because that is what I did at the Department of Trade and Industry.

Tim Loughton: Bore for Britain.

Kim Howells: That is absolutely true—you, Mr. Hancock, should have tried serving on the Committee that considered the Office of Communications Bill.
 We do not intend to give English Heritage the power to exploit privately owned rights—that is the important point. If we had intended to enable it to exploit other people's intellectual property rights, the wording of the provision would have to have been more explicit. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet is right about that. 
 The Bill cannot be interpreted in such a way because a requirement in section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that legislation should be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the European convention on human rights. The intellectual property provisions in the Bill enable English Heritage to exploit any intellectual property rights that it owns. If an individual or organisation undertakes work for English Heritage, English Heritage will be able to exploit the intellectual property rights in that work only if it owns them or has a licence to use them. Whether it owns such intellectual property rights will depend on the contract between it and the individual who undertakes the work. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 8Short title, commencement and extent

Short title, commencement and extent

Sydney Chapman: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 24, leave out subsection (6).
 I am reliably informed that moving such an amendment is a usual procedure. When a Bill starts its journey in the House of Lords, their lordships are required to insert the subsection that the amendment would remove because—I put this diplomatically—their powers in relation to financial matters have been curtailed since 1910.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister was doing very well until he mentioned the Office of Communications Bill. I feel very nostalgic about that Bill, and I can speak at length on the topic. [Interruption.] By popular request, I shall refrain from that tactic.
 I want to pose a question to the Minister about the amendment. I understand that costs will not be borne by the taxpayer. I should love to share a four-page note on the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill with the Committee, but I fear that time will prevent me from exploring that interesting briefing. Obviously, the Committee is in favour of giving grant aid to English Heritage. However, I am confused. With regard to clause 7, which we have accepted, a situation may arise whereby a separate body carries out contract work for English Heritage if the personnel or finance are not available. That begs the question of why grant aid should be given to English Heritage if another body does the work.

Mike Hancock: The hon. Lady is straying slightly from the point.

Anne McIntosh: I gather that the Bill applies only to England and Wales. In the event of a dispute on the intellectual property rights, which court will be applicable?

Kim Howells: I did try to explain the position with regard to disputes over intellectual property rights. There are clear channels for dealing with such disputes involving the World Trade Organisation and the European courts—it is important that the hon. Lady knows that, because she worked in Brussels. Rulings
 are always subject to review by courts in the United Kingdom. There is no shortage of avenues for appeal should anyone feel that their intellectual property rights have been stolen or infringed. Considering English Heritage's great experience and the responsible attitude that it has always taken to intellectual property rights, it is highly unlikely that such a thing would happen.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do the report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Sydney Chapman: Before you formally close proceedings, Mr. Hancock, I wish to thank you for conducting our proceedings efficiently and quietly. I also thank the Minister for the additional information that he gave the Committee, and all members of the Committee for agreeing to serve on it. I hope that the Bill will show that Parliament is increasingly concerned with and recognises the importance of archaeology, whether underwater or on land.
 As I am old enough to remember this, I should like to finish by telling hon. Members about the late Dame Agatha Christie, who married a distinguished archaeologist. She was invited to give the prizes at a ladies' school. Her advice to the pupils who were leaving was, ''You are going out into that wonderful world. You may decide to get married and want to be sure that you are marrying the right person. If in doubt, marry an archaeologist, because the older you get, the more interest they will take in you.'' I am searching for female archaeologists.

Mike Hancock: On behalf of the Committee, I thank the hon. Member for his stewardship of this legislation. Thank you all.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at twenty-two minutes past Eleven o'clock.